Containment -1
- It's apparently bad juju to give your SCP a number before you post it. You should use 0000, ####, or XXXX as a placeholder until you post it in an actual slot. I personally don't care, but it seems to bother a lot of people.
- I believe it is generally regarded as bad to refer to an SCP as the subject. That's more appropriate for test subjects, etc. It should be referred to as "SCP-####"
- It is heavily encouraged to restrict from asking intimate and personal questions about others to the subject (Addendum 2062-1). This sentence sucks. You probably want to say "refrain from asking SCP-XXXX
-The wording in that last sentence in the containment is also unpleasant to read. I get what you're trying to do with the cross-outs, but it's distracting, particularly because of the poorly constructed sentences in this section. Also, I can't imagine a scenario where the Foundation would let a scip wander around the halls where anydamnbody can start milking information out of it.

Description +1 (if you fix the grammar/formatting issues)
- Try "Caucasian male" instead of male of Caucasian descent. Also, you can ditch the standard measurements. The Foundation is all metric all the time.
- I would change , and possesses average physical capabilities. It also displays intelligence slightly higher than an average person. to it's own sentence: SCP-#### is of average physical capability and displays slightly higher than average intelligence."
- the subject does possess the ability of writing change to "he does possess the ability to write. Actually, I'd rewrite the sentences where you're explaining that he can communicate through writing. You are needlessly verbose here.

First Addendum -1. I say get rid of it. I can't imagine personnel would/should/could have that much access to a scip outside of testing, and if they did, I think it would be understood not to pry him with questions, personal or otherwise. If that were the case, why would people ask him personal questions? I'd ask "Will the Giants win tonight" and start racking in a healthy sum of gambling dough.

** Second Addendum** no vote
- It's just [REDACTED], not //[DATA REDACTED]
- Again, it's a stretch that some researcher would have that sort of access to a scip. I think you can rework this scenario of a dumb young researcher [REDACTED]ing your scip and it leading to a change in the containment procedures, but not as it is written.

Test Logs +1
-I think you can take the comment after test 7 and move it to test 8. Delete the comment you currently have after test 8. Having both of those in there is a little redundant.
-Test 15 needs more detail, like an example or list of questions asked. Same with Test 16.
-Test 19, good use of redaction. BUT this is exactly why you don't want this scip be-bopping through the halls, or hanging out alone with a nubile young researcher. Also, the comment after this test adds nothing to the story.

Overall no vote. Not ready for prime time
I might upvote this if you address all the stuff I mentioned. I dig a couple things you are trying to do here. But let me tell you why I think a lot of people will probably downvote…
-There's no back story. The Foundation all of the sudden has this omniscient teenager that answers questions about string theory and religion? How did we find him? Maybe hint at how/why he was given/chosen for these powers.
-Humanoid scips are hard to do. Omniscient scips are hard to do. Omniscient humanoid scips are really, really hard to pull off in a manner that people will enjoy. And it is going to have to be written and researched very, very well.

I think you have a good scip in you. My advice would be if you want to write a humanoid scip, read as many humanoid scips as you can. Read the discussion pages too, especially for the ones you like and the ones that got the highest ratings.

This isn't the most unique concept in the world, but I haven't read a scip quite like this one. You can probably pull this off if you put a lot more work into it.

Agree: ditch that first addendum about the researcher screwing up; it doesn't add anything to the article. We just know that someone who is never mentioned before or afterward did something she shouldn't and got in trouble for it. There's no real reason it needs to be mentioned in the article, it has no lasting effect on the subject itself, and you could change a couple words and stick it into any SCP on the site: pretty much the definition of tacked-on fluff.

I'd also suggest that you focus on telling the story of the subject itself and its origins. Bonus points if you can figure out a backstory and personality that doesn't involve "pity the poor weepy all knowing oracle from an alternate universe/higher dimension".

Update: I changed the addendum, no more frisky Junior Researchers. Also added a background story - I honestly couldn't think of any for a while. I did not want what Scorpion said as my story (pity the poor oracle from alternate universe or higher dimension), but it is kind of hard for someone who cannot speak except to answer yes or no questions and is a young, relatively normal person to merit the attention and investigation of the Foundation. Honestly, if any of you have any ideas as to a better story or an improvement on mine, please share. I also added a redid the basic information so he did "true or false" instead of "yes or no", but added an small addendum and incident report where it is revealed he can do "yes or no" framed questions as well. You can find it at the same place (link at top).

It possesses average physical capabilities and displays intelligence slightly higher than an average person.

According to what scale? What sort of testing was done to establish this?

Physical examinations and extensive study have shown that SCP-XXXX is biologically human and shares all the same needs as a normal human would.

I would change slightly to read: "Physical examinations and extensive study have shown that SCP-XXXX is biologically human and appears to have normal human physiology."

Writing, either by an interviewer or the subject, is not affected the same way as speech, therefore SCP-XXXX can communicate English to personnel through writing.

There are issues with this sentence. The structure is clunky. I would change to: "Written communication is not affected by the subject's abilities. SCP-XXXX is fully capable of interaction with personnel through written statements."

Interviews with SCP-XXXX have revealed that the subject is unaware of its actions when answering a question, furthering the current hypothesis that an unknown force attached to the subject answers any questions proposed by using SCP-XXXX, instead of SCP-XXXX answering them of its own accord.

Hmmm… I, personally, have issues with this paragraph. First, it's one, really long sentence, second, it's clunky. Might read better as: "Interviews with SCP-XXXX have revealed that the subject is unaware of its actions when answering a question. The current hypothesis is that there is an unknown force or entity attached to the subject that is answering the questions proposed to SCP-XXXX as opposed to SCP-XXXX answering of it's own accord."

SCP-XXXX will no longer be allowed free roam

Would probably sound better as: "roam freely"

Also, questions that are proposed must be approved by Dr. Claber.

Sentence fragment. Consider revising. "All questions to be posed to the subject must be approved by Dr. Claber."

Dr. Claber and his team have been adminisitered Class B amnesiatics and are to resume testing.

I've decided to not make this SCP at the current time, although I might come back to it later. I just need time to clear my mind from this and look at it again from a clear perspective. I have deleted the draft for now.